Talk:Signature Tower

Hotel Palomar reference

For the time being, I'm going to leave this reference in the article, just in case it is a very recent news announcement that hasn't propagated online. As of this time, I can find no reference to Hotel Palomar expanding into Signature, or even into Nashville, nor is it on Kimpton Hotel's list of planned expansions (other than where they'd like to see something new). If someone can find a reference, that would be great; if nothing is found within a short while, I'll revert. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was mentioned in the Nashville Post... citation added. Kaldari 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the relevent text if you don't have a subscription to NashvillePost:
"Developer Tony Giarratana and officials of the Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant chain -- which turns out to have deep Nashville connections -- this morning unveiled plans for the 200-room Hotel Palomar, to occupy 10 stories of the planned 65-story downtown skyscraper."
Kaldari 18:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Building Height

An article published today in Engineering News-Record states that the height will be 1,057, not 1,047, as other articles have stated. Kaldari 17:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I just saw this information on Skyscraperpage.com forums. Thanks also for the Palomar cite. Only wish the height article wasn't subscriber only :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

refs

[1] is a dead link

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Location of project

Where is this tower planned? Are 36°9′45.9″N 86°46′48.9″W the correct coordinates? -- User:Docu

Yes, but we don't put coordinates in building articles until construction begins. One reason for this is that Wikipedia coordinates are reused by numerous websites including maps.google.com. So if we add coordinates to this article, maps.google.com will show Signature Tower as an actual location in Nashville in place of whatever actually resides there currently (a parking lot). For people using maps.google.com to look for parking downtown, this is an actual problem. Also, there is no guarantee that planned buildings will actually be built. This building, for example, was originally slated to be completed in 2008, but more than likely it will never even break ground (due to the economy). Kaldari (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you don't put coordinates into articles, but Huntster and I, we do. Thus it's not clear to me how you come to write "We don't put". Besides, if people use the street address in the article, they will arrive exactly at the same location. Nothing in the coordinates indicates that these are the coordinates of an existing building. -- User:Docu

I said "we" based on the other articles in Category:Proposed buildings and structures. The street address isn't a problem because other websites don't use our address metadata. The only place someone is going to see that address is here in this article where it prominently warns them that this is a proposed building, not an existing building. On that note, however, I don't believe that proposed buildings have addresses or coordinates, but of the two, coordinates are far more problematic and superfluous. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's why putting coordinates in this article is a bad idea. This is quite misleading to anyone not familiar with Nashville, especially considering that the chances of Signature Tower actually being build are pretty slim, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree with Kaldari. More than one 'proposed skyscraper' article that I have been involved in, has had its location (and design, height, budget, etc.) changed before ground breaking. It is fine to go round fixing the coordinates of things you can find (I have done so myself - eg. all the Liga 1 football stadiums in Romania), but it is unwise to state a location of a building (or any other proposed structure) until construction has actually started for exactly the reasons mentioned above. Astronaut (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am personally ambivalent regarding this situation, and I feel both parties make valid points. I would point out that, in this case, the land that the building is intended to be constructed at has already been purchased, so I find it very unlikely that the location will be moved. I am counting on Signature actually being constructed...I'm getting very bored looking at the Nashville skyline when I drive through! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When I follow the link Kaldari provided, I find a map linking to an article that says it's a project. I don't see what's misleading about that.

If Google decided to use the coordinates, this can be a good indication that we should be adding them. Anyways, it is a choice they make we can't influence. What is essential for us, is that the information we provide is correct. In this case, I think we all agree that the location is correct, besides, nobody would remove the street address either. We could suggest to WP:GEO, to add a specific coordinates type for planned buildings, e.g. "type:project", currently I used "type:event" instead of "type:landmark". -- User:Docu

As I understand it, Google's spiders visit Wikipedia and if they see a {{coord}} template they add a "W" marker to Google Maps and Google Earth, and that then gets propogated elsewhere on the internet (eg. to sites that use Google's mapping API). It is up to us here at Wikipedia to be sure we have the right coordinates for the sake of everyone else and, yes, it is something we at Wikipedia can influence. However, it can take a long time (several months in my experience) for the spiders to come round again, so if it is possible that a location could change, it is probably best to not put the location in the article.

For example, I decided to fix the locations of the Romanian football stadiums when I noticed that the stadium in Cluj had 8 "W" markers on it in Google Earth, one for Cluj's stadium and 7 for stadiums in other cities. I used Google Earth to find the actual location of each stadium (there was no marker, but a football stadium is pretty easy to spot on a satellite photo), and put the correct location into Wikipedia to replace the one that had been copy&pasted from the Cluj stadium article. I can't yet see the result because Google's spiders haven't visited the stadium articles again. Astronaut (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to get the coordinates right. In this case, this isn't an issue. BTW Lake Ceauru (project) has coordinates too. Contrary to real lakes, it doesn't use "type:waterbody" though. -- User:Docu

It definitely is an issue. Signature Tower has an actual business office which is not at the potential construction location. If you're going to provide coordinates and an address, those should be the ones you use, as there is nothing whatsoever at the current coordinates other than a parking lot run by a different company. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Lake Ceauru (project) isn't equivalent as construction actually began on that project. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lake Ceauru is a bit odd, as, according to the WP article, it appeared on maps as a lake. Anyways, for a more general opinion, you might want to ask at WT:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. -- User:Docu

If we know that the tower is being built there, we should give the coordinates. This is an encyclopedia, which includes relevant links (to the geohack page), and in most cases (exceptions include BLP) our first duty is to our readers. Even if it is never built, coordinates are appropriate to show where it was planned to be built (just as coordinates are appropriate for former features). If Google chooses to use our encyclopedia in other ways, it's their duty, not ours, to make sure it's suitable for their purposes. --NE2 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should require at least ground-breaking before we add the coordinates. Without a physical act at the site, there is no geographical presence to record. Once the ground is broken, I'm happy for the coordinates to go in, and stay in, even if the building is never finished. -- The Anome (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a "physical presence", there is a location that people may want to know exactly where it is. --NE2 08:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am, fwiw, in favour of adding coordinates for planned entities, so long as there is certainty about the proposed location for the planned entity. It is clear to me that it is appropriate, in the case of any entity for which plans to site the said entity at a definite place exist or existed, to describe in our article that such & such an entity is or was planned to be located at a place denoted in the normal way, by the use of {{coord}} in the article. I do not agree that we need await ground-breaking. Offhand, I can think of, oh, at least one most excellent thing which was planned yet not built - Gormley's the Brick Man - which I see has been tagged by UncleBucko. Now the poor citizens of Leeds can see the place that their entirely stupid council with crass lack of foresight and woeful imagination refused, years before the erection and success of the Angel of the North. I trust they'll weep bitter tears and hold in opprobrium Conservative councillor Richard Hughes-Rowlands...but I digress. There must be many such examples; and if there are signature towers proposed for specified locations then we should specify the location. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Groundbreaking?

The infobox says "Groundbreaking: 2008". Apparently that didn't happen. What's the new date, '09 or '10?
—WWoods (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no new date, I'll remove it. Kaldari (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Signature Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220901/http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=55372 to http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=55372
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newschannel5.com/story/9451444/signature-tower-wont-be-70-stories
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.seig-pr.com/%5Cpressrelease%5CGDL%20Giarratana%20Outstanding%20Nashvillian%206-15-06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613065332/http://signaturetowernashville.com/ to http://www.signaturetowernashville.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)